CHANDER SEKHAR ALIAS BITTO Vs. ISHWAR CHANDER PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) is directed against the order dated 24-10-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Ferozepur. The Civil Judge has dismissed the application of the defendant petitioner filed under Ss. 151 and 152 of the Code for getting the signatures of Smt. Mohan Devi compared on the original power of attorney dated 12-7-1991 from the Director Forensic Lab. Science. Punjab, Chandigarh with registered Will dated 11-2-1983 and un-registered Will dated 10-8-1991. The ground for rectification of mistake peladed is that inadvertantly the Civil Judge omitted to send the power of attorney and therefore the mistake be rectified.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff respondents had filed a Civil Suit No. 164-1 instituted on 21-5-1994/ 15-6-1999 for declaration that the plaintiff respondents are the owner in possession of a house bearing Municipal No. CS 10/20 to the extent of 7/12 share more fully described in the plaint. Further prayer for permanent injunction restraining defendant petitioner and defendant respondent has also made from raising any type of construction on any portion of the property or from alienating the property or part thereof on the basis of oral/ documentary evidence. The application filed earlier for the purposes of comparison of signatures of Mohan Devi with similar prayer has been allowed and the registered and unregistered Wills dated 11-3-1983 and 10-8-1991 were sent for comparison. A copy of the order dated 2-5-2000 has been placed on the record by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner which is marked as "A". Another application for comparison of signatures on power of attorney which has resulted into passing of the impugned order has been dismissed by the Civil Judge with the following observations :

(3.) Shri V. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner has argued that the Civil Judge has committed a mistake by recording that only registered and unregistered Wills were sent for the purposes of comparison of signatures vide order dated 2-5-2000. According to the learned counsel, the Civil Judge in fact had also ordered that general power of attorney dated 12-7-1991 be also sent for the purposes of verification of signatures and by mistake the same was not sent. Therefore, the learned counsel argued that it is a mere rectification of mistake which should have been effected by the Civil Judge by allowing his application filed under Ss. 151 and 152 of the Code.